[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180424160652.GA28483@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 18:06:53 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: simplify procfs code for seq_file instances
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:19:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I want to ask if it is time to start using poorman function overloading
> > > with _b_c_e(). There are millions of allocation functions for example,
> > > all slightly difference, and people will add more. Seeing /proc interfaces
> > > doubled like this is painful.
> >
> > Function overloading is totally unacceptable.
> >
> > And I very much disagree with a tradeoff that keeps 5000 lines of
> > code vs a few new helpers.
>
> OK, the curiosity and suspense are killing me. What the heck is
> "function overloading with _b_c_e()"?
The way I understood Alexey was to use have a proc_create macro
that can take different ops types. Although the short cut for
__builtin_types_compatible_p would be _b_t_c or similar, so maybe
I misunderstood him.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists